The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Of course he cannot and will not do that.All of mindspawn's arguments in this thread, and in other of his threads including the carbon dating thread, and the general radiometric dating thread consist of mindspawn describing the extent of his rationale for holding onto his beliefs while continuing to maintain grasp onto science-like phrasing in order to convey some kind of legitmacy.In short, he's clinging to any tiny hole in the evidence or in human knowledge as a confirmation that he is right. Such techniques require him to apply the kind of double standard we see here. And if your goal is to question the findings of others and not to persuade others or to question your own beliefs, a double standard works just fine.I'd call it a funky kind of 'God of the gaps' arguments with an extra kicker. mindspawn attempts to wedge gaps into stuff that human's actually do know to a high degree of certainty. That's why he prefaces so many statements with "I believe". In short, Mindspwan's arguments are not for you, they are for mindspawn.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Its not actually a ploy, it's a legitimate requirement. Its not like we expect a complete record of intermediates, we merely require a significant record among many "species".

---

If the fossil record is sparse because few of the creatures living in that period were fossilised - and the evidence supports that view - then the absence of fossils is not a point which favours either view. The fact that when we do find fossils they are consistent with our view and not with yours, on the other hand does favour our view. A bogus argument which attempts to avoid the evidence is an obvious ploy and obviously not legitimate.

All fossils are consistent with creationism. So I do not see why you think any fossils are more consistent with evolution than creationism. Could you cite some examples please.I do believe in rapid outward transformation, so I'm not as careful to dispute any sequence as other creationists, but some big claims like apes to humans I do definitely dispute. Many so-called evolutionist sequences are incorrect on closer analysis of the sequence. This problem is particularly prevalent with human sequences where the fossils are normally full fledged apes or full fledged humans, and yet intermediates are claimed. Various breeds of apes and races of humans are arranged into a false evolutionary sequence that looks correct only superficially.If you like you can use one of your human sequences to prove evolution and we can analyse the physical attributes of them to see if evolutionists have any legitimate case for the evolution of humans. Any evidence for evolution will be appreciated.

quote:

---

All fossils are consistent with creationism. So I do not see why you think any fossils are more consistent with evolution than creationism. Could you cite some examples please

---

If I had said that, I would point to the many known intermediate fossils.However I did not say that. So instead I will point to the fact that our explanations for the sparsity of the fossil record mostly do not work for your position - which is why you have to resort to the excuses seen in this thread.

quote:

---

Many so-called evolutionist sequences are incorrect on closer analysis of the sequence. This problem is particularly prevalent with human sequences where the fossils are normally full fledged apes or full fledged humans, and yet intermediates are claimed.

---

Creationists claim that, but cannot agree on which are "fully human" and which are "fully ape" (well, they are all apes - humans have been classified as apes since Linnaeus). In reality there are intermediates.

quote:

---

If you like you can use one of your human sequences to prove evolution and we can analyse the physical attributes of them to see if evolutionists have any legitimate case for the evolution of humans. Any evidence for evolution will be appreciated.

---

That doesn't doesn't sound on topic for this thread. And quite frankly I don't see it worthwhile to create one.

Why, yes, any scenario at all is consistent with "a wizard did it". But unless the wizard is also a liar who made the whole of the fossil record into a lie, one would have to wonder why the wizard magicked up a fossil and geological record which perfectly verifies evolution. But this is manifestly false; which is why although creationists unanimously assert that the fossils are either "full fledged apes or full fledged humans" they cannot agree among themselves which is which.Or, indeed, with themselves. So for example according to Duane Gish in his book Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record the specimen ER1470 was a "full fledged ape"; but according to Duane Gish in his book Evolution: the fossils say no it was" a "full-fledged human". Similarly in P.S. Taylor's The illustrated origins answer book Peking man is a "full-fledged ape", but in P.S. Taylor's Who's who and what's what in the world of "missing" links? it's a "fully-fledged human".Right here on these forums we had a guy called Mazzy. One day he was writing this: "Turkana Boy is human, the others, especially the one on display at the museum in Michagan, are apes. I am remiss in my ability to understand how such intelligent scientists cannot see the difference"; and a couple of weeks later he was writing "I have no idea why any creationist would purport Turkana Boy to be human". Isn't that amazing even for a creationist --- one day he can't understand how anyone could think Turkana boy wasn't human, and yet two weeks later he can't understand why anyone would claim it was. (I pointed out to him that if he could remember what he himself was thinking two weeks previously, he might come to understand that particular mystery. He took my helpful suggestion rather poorly.)So, if all the apemen divide neatly into apes and humans, why cannot creationists come to anything remotely resembling a consensus as to where the great gulf between them lies?Would you like to have a go? Here's some skulls. Where would you yourself like to place the Great Divide? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Haha point taken. Yes legally it was very much an eye for an eye. It was definitely a set of legals laws on how to deal with various types of crimes. Especially Leviticus and Deuteronomy. So I do stand corrected. However most of the bible including Genesis was not a legal document.

So, nothing about those fossils yet?

I can't really see why you'd object to human evolution anyway. (Apart from, y'know, religion.) But if you can believe that in a couple of thousand years we got from a basal bipedal archosaur such as Archosaurus to such distinctive forms as Triceraptops, Stegosaurus, Spinosaurus and Dracorex ... ... then I don't see how you can cavil at the proposition (supported by many intermediate forms) that humans descended from more basal apes over a period of millions of years.On what basis would you believe that major morphological changes can take place over a few thousand years, but relatively minor morphological changes can't take place over millions of years?Again, couldn't you apply a single standard to the sort of thing you find credible?According to you, giant organisms with hard parts living 5,000 years ago can disappear from the fossil record completely without trace, but the theory of evolution is in big trouble if we can't find all of the small soft-bodied creatures from 500,000,000 years ago. And according to you, Triceraptops, Stegosaurus, Spinosaurus and Dracorex can all evolve from a Permian archosaur in a couple of thousand years, but millions of years aren't enough to get from something like this ... ... to something like this ... ... despite all the intermediate forms that exemplify the transition.

Uh... humans are apes. Humans. Are. Apes.What you said is the same as saying that one car is a fully fledged Corvette while another car is a fully fledged Chevrolet.Or that one animal is a fully fledged dog while the other is a fully fledged mammal.It's called a nested hierarchy <--clicky

I don't remember suggesting that they were 'missing links'. I was simply pointing out that there were possible precursor life forms. Your statement that life just suddenly appeared in the form of all major phyla was incorrect. So, you are saying that, according to you, organisms could not evolve with the changing environment.How do you come up with that?Where on earth did you learn about evolution?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Unfortunately the existence of "possible precursor life-forms" isn't sufficient to justify a theory like evolution. If these creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record as world conditions change, this rather points to them already being in existence in another location and radiating out from there when world conditions suit them. This appears to be the case with trilobites radiating out from Siberia.So the evidence does not point to any evolving, but points to organisms already existing and radiating out from niche locations as new conditions become more suitable for that organism. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You are obviously correct. Kindly forgive me for my occasional lapses in terminology, I'm not as used to discussing this subject as you guys. I appreciate the correction, it's good to get the terminology correct so that we are all on the same page. I'm still learning

I must admit that this post (post 758) had me questioning myself for a few minutes. I was wondering how its possible for so many changes to occur in about 4500 years since the flood, believing this is only enough time for a few point mutations and minor changes to the DNA. In my naivete I failed to realise that in fact organisms do often change their chromosome number through fusion or polyploidy. As long as the number of active genes remains the same, this does not cause much damage to the organism.Is there any evidence of additional unique active coding GENES in marsupial divergence over time? At evolutionary rates we should expect more than a thousand additional unique active coding genes since the American possum diverged from the Australian marsupials? That would really prove the theory of evolution. Any lack thereof will bring into question why evolutionist claims of an evolutionary process of net gains in unique active coding genes over time would have suddenly STOPPED as soon as it can be measured.

Not to delve into every one of those fossils, but archosaurs come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The dicynodont was a Permian archosaur that is often depicted with similar features to the Triceratops, albeit less dramatic. Horns and a protective skull. Similarly Procolophonids have horns and a protective skull. So I don't regard the rapid adaptation as far-fetched. The mega-sizes are the biggest difference.The Dimetrodon was a pre-flood reptile with a sail , a similar feature to certain post-flood dinosaurs.So the post-flood adaptation of these various reptiles to terrestrial habits was not that dramatic. Size changes however were dramatic.And I would have no problem with rapid ape adaptation as well. Sure apes could have changed since creation week, humans certainly did. There are a variety of races from those two individuals so there is no reason for me to have a problem with rapid adaptation when its staring creationists in the face (pygmies, Dutch, Japanese, Neanderthals etc) . My main problem with the theory of evolution is the unproven claims that there are net gains of unique active coding genes over time, which is how evolutionists explain most modern species. This theory is not observed.

If the fossil record is sparse, what then are you basing your theory on? The more logical conclusion is that organisms just appeared which is what is observed if you do not have intermediate fossils. Even if you have a good reason for your lack of intermediates , this just justifies not immediately discarding evolutionary theory. It should be immediately discarded based on the lack of evidence, but yes, you have an excuse not to discard it because you have an excuse for the lack of intermediates. How that FAVOURS evolution, is beyond me. The evidence favors sudden appearance without intermediates.Sure there are some minor transitions recorded elsewhere in the fossil record, adaptation does exist. However these are particularly lacking closer to creation week, in the Cambrian Explosion.